Present: Mr.Sarfraj HussaIn Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1157908
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-24-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr.Sarfraj HussaIn Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-23942 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh230crm no.m-23942 of 2014 date of decision:24.07.2014 kabir .....petitioner versus state of haryana .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: mr.sarfraj hussain, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.suvir sidhu, deputy advocate general, haryana, for the respondent-state. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) petitioner-kabir son of majjal, has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused arshad etc., vide fir no.215 dated 02.04.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 120-b, 225-b ipc and section 25 of the arms act, by the police of police station nuh, district mewat.2. notice of the petition was issued to the state.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.4. concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 02.04.2014, as soon as, the petitioner was apprehended, in the meantime, he started rani seema 2014.07.24 17:49 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-23942 of 2014 2 firing on the police-party. it is not a matter of dispute that the shots fired by him did not hit anybody. no other specific role or particular part is attributed to the petitioner in the fir. it is a no injury case. in that eventuality, as to whether the penal provision as contemplated under section 307 ipc is attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial court.5. be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2014. since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. there is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. since, even charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.6. in the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. july 24, 2014 (mehinder singh sullar) seema judge rani seema 2014.07.24 17:49 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-23942 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH230CRM No.M-23942 of 2014 Date of Decision:24.07.2014 Kabir .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Kabir son of Majjal, has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused Arshad etc., vide FIR No.215 dated 02.04.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 120-B, 225-B IPC and Section 25 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Nuh, District Mewat.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

4. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 02.04.2014, as soon as, the petitioner was apprehended, in the meantime, he started Rani Seema 2014.07.24 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-23942 of 2014 2 firing on the police-party. It is not a matter of dispute that the shots fired by him did not hit anybody. No other specific role or particular part is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. It is a no injury case. In that eventuality, as to whether the penal provision as contemplated under Section 307 IPC is attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2014. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Since, even charges have not yet been framed against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. July 24, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.24 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh